hig_listBrowse Apple Human Interface Guidelines topics by section to locate design standards for your platform.
List HIG topics, optionally limited to a section such as Foundations, Components, Patterns, Inputs, Technologies, or Getting started.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | No | Section name, e.g. Foundations, Components, Patterns, Inputs, Technologies, Getting started |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it lists topics and can be filtered by section, but it doesn't disclose details like whether the list is ordered, paginated, or if it returns full objects or just summaries. With annotations covering key behaviors, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource, then adds the optional parameter. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the purpose and the filter, and combined with annotations (read-only, open-world), an agent has enough to call it. The only minor gap is not describing the return format, but that's minor given the simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'section' parameter with examples. The description adds the context that the section filters the list and lists possible values, which is slightly beyond the schema's 'e.g.' but still minimal. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('HIG topics'), and it mentions it can be optionally limited by section, which helps distinguish from sibling tools like hig_get. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hig_toc, which might also list topics, so it's clear but not fully differentiating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (to list topics, optionally filtered by section), but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like hig_search or hig_get. It mentions the optional section filter, which gives some context for usage, but lacks exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.